Legal Opinion
Da Vinci Group v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 2, 1992No. A055022PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KING, Acting P. J.
In this case we hold a commercial warehouse built in 1905, used residentially since 1980, subsequently renovated and granted a certificate of occupancy in 1986, does not come within the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance’s “new construction” or “substantial rehabilitation” exemptions. In addition we hold the Ordinance does not authorize the rent board to award rebates of past overpayments based on null and void rent increases.
Landlord Da Vinci Group appeals from an order denying its petition for writ of mandate and thereby affirming…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. Department of EmploymentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Pollack v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- East Peninsula Education Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Barnes v. ChamberlainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell Western E & P, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- City of Lafayette v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- City of Morgan Hill v. Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- County of Humboldt v. McKeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino Air Quality Management DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.